Search This Blog

An academic librarian with some old-fashioned sense, some newfangled sense, and all-around appreciation for the art of all things informationish. Also voted Librarian Most Likely to be Asked to Star in 'Roadhouse II: The Academic Reckoning.'

Statements Provocative and Otherwise: The Taiga 4

My plan was to discuss both the Taiga 4 and Darien statements, and then to offer my own statements on libraries, but that turned into a monster of a post, so I’m breaking it up. Today, my take on Taiga, that harbor of AUL and ADs, the invite-only crowd that purports to decree the future of libraries five years hence, and puts its statements out in, you guessed it (or clicked on it), pdf format. How very futuristic.

The Taiga 4 Provocative Statements are just that. Provocative statements. Note that they didn’t say *what* they were looking to provoke. I mean, hell, Jerry Springer is provocative, but that doesn’t mean I think about it in the shower, or during my workday. A few items:

Item 2: “… collection development as we now know it will cease to exist as selection of patron materials will be entirely patron-initiated.” I find this fascinating, especially fiven that these are ginormous ole ARL folks. Really? You’d entrust building your academic collection to the handful of faculty who are on the ball about it? Funny, at my last university, we gave faculty a pot of money for their departments to deal with faculty requests as separate from the subject liaison collection money. Inevitably, we had to spend their money too, since faculty were too busy doing faculty things to actually request their own materials. What a great way to lead to an imbalanced collection. Not holding my breath.

Item 3, the one where they state that Google will meet all user info needs for students and researchers, has been inexplicably stricken out. So really, the final draft has 9 statements and an “oops.”

Item 5: “…libraries will have given up on the “outreach librarian” model after faculty persistently show no interest in it.” Hm, maybe you’re doin’ it wrong. I know quite a few outreach and liaison librarians who garner high praise from faculty. Then again, a lot of these are at the 1,500 – 15,000 FTE level, which apparently don’t count to Taiga. So much for all those faculty and students excited to learn how to use databases efficiently and improve their research models. Pshah.

Item 6: “…libraries will provide no in-person services.” *sigh* I’ve worked both in Access & Delivery and in Reference and Instruction. I wonder how often these taiga folks actually walk through their libraries instead of heading straight for the admin suite where there is nary a patron to be found. Yes, many services may be supported by technology, but completely unmediated? Doubt it. iPhones aren’t quite that ubiquitous, and they’re assuming no learning curve for any of their patrons. Not everyone shows up fully tech-ready for the post-2.0 world, and 5 years isn’t enough for me to agree this is likely.

Item 10: “…University administrators will see that librarians do not have the skills they need and will hire leaders from other parts of the academy…” Fascinating. No discussion of what those skills are, or how dynamos like Jenica Rogers-Urbanek (new Director of Libraries at SUNY-Potsdam as of July) are up and coming rock stars, or how library deans like Theresa Liedtka at UTC’s Lupton Library scrap for scarce funds and treat both their librarians and the university faculty and student bodies extraordinarily well on a shoestring budget. Again, as non-ARL spots, those directors don’t count. No, we are obviously ill-equipped, what all with the way we as librarians work under budget constraints with not enough staff, keep up with professional development and learning new technologies on our own time, teach, and try to make our libraries more efficient, user-friendly, and prepared for the future. Silly us. We should be doing more hand-wringing, or becoming bureaucrats in other areas of the academy if we want a leadership shot.

There’s nothing in these statements that speaks to the value or value-add of librarianship, not much that’s helpful with regards to the future of the academic library. No collection development, no in-person services, no outreach to faculty and students – which by extension means no instruction, licensing done by campus admin and not librarians, library buildings as giant commons, and no librarians being seen as useful enough to promote to directorships. Well, that's a hell of a way to sell the profession: "FYI: In 5 years, you're useless. Kthxbai!" There’s no mention at all about how we can best serve our users or adapt to changing economic, physical, and staffing landscapes– just that we’re not going to be able to since we’ll have been digested by bureaucracy.

In my estimation, if these “provocative” statements were intended to initiate a meaningful discussion about the future of academic libraries, they have failed miserably. All they’ve done is point out how little these AULs and ADs understand about the day to day workings of the library, how little they care to invest in their own people, and how little they think we shape our future. And what a grim opinion those AULs and ADs have of the professionals they work with - such talentless and skill-deprived folks that they don't see them in leadership positions. That's a damned shame - and damned untrue, from what I've seen of the many talented librarians I know and would be happy to work with and for.

Dear Taiga 4 folks: Your bitter is showing. Better watch that! *wink*

**Coming soon: a response/reflection on the Darien Statements, and then a statement of my own on libraries and librarianship.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Anonymous said…

you're thinking too local in considering that collection development by patron request means giving $$ to faculty to make selection decisions. it can mean more effort put in exposing the world of possibilities, beyond local collections of any size, and putting systems in place to deliver immediately or pretty darn fast. this is the direction we're seeing at Michigan and with others putting together slick POD systems in collaboration with publishers.

I wouldn't argue that it's notimportant to let the collection be shaped by our patrons. But if you consider that the Taiga 4 is addressing academic libraries specifically, if you let the collection be *entirely* driven by patrons (which is what the statement says), then an academic library's collection would end up lacking the depth it needs to support true research. And while it's true that POD is up and coming and will likely be a great service, waiting until folks ask - and only picking up what they ask for - will still leave important gaps in a collection.

Giving faculty money for selection isn't the only way to create a patron-driven collection, no. And I wouldn't argue overmuch with the benefits of POD. My argument is more against the statement that building a collection *SOLELY* based on requests is a lackluster idea for major academic institutions.

Popular posts from this blog

User experience is primary role, also supports website and service design. Serves as consultant within library as well as with others doing user research in context of specific services, also trains on best research practices. UX as concept and methods are not new at McGill, because UX shares a toolkit with assessment, communications, etc. UX as operational and UX as project based. Notion of ongoing service improvement. Doesn't seek REB/IRB for most projects so can quickly set up usability. (REB doesn't inherently make something ethical, remember.)

Toolbox model of UX - sum of many methods. Can ease, simplify, clarify, build consensus around an approach. Provide a check for assumptions we may or may not be aware of. Bringing UX doesn't have to be expensive. Not listed to before/after a project lifecycle, UX methodologies can be brought in at many stages. Traditional…

Data Migration to Open Journal System (OJS) Using RYou Young Lee
Worked with scholarly communication librarian to move from legacy system to OJS. Migration using R programming language. Wanted to migrate nursing journal Aporia. Internal system didn't support editor peer review, no user friendly interface to upload articles, typical workflow was to receive content and copy and paste metadata using templates and uploading to server. Since OJS is available, time to move on. Approximately 32 issues, didn't want to manually copy and paste. New issue will have updated location.

Project goal: how to convert metadata in HTML into XML. Project tool and packages: Use Studio instead of R, provides console and editor, debugging tool and workspace management. Easy to manage datasets and scripts all in one place. Rcrawler, data.table, dplyr, XML, stringr. Challenge 1: how download data from the website: crawler parses whole website and extracts all data with a single command line. HTML cla…

Making Choices About Your DataDigital Humanities Summer Institute #DHSI18 Day 3 (Morning)Paige Morgan and Yvonne Lam
Standardized rights statements: http://rightsstatements.org/en/ Controlled vocabulariesWorking with OpenrefineFree work timeLunchReading: Against CleaningFree work timeTomorrow: Meeting with FemDH
Controlled vocabulary: a set of carefully chosen words and phrases used to help structure and define information so that it can be easily returned in a search, or parsed by analysis programs. May be the basis for taxonomies and ontologies; can be hierarchical or restricted in various ways.
Ex) Pizza vocabulary.
Crust (deep dish; crispy)
Sauce (marinara, alfredo, olive oil)
Cheese (mozzarella, Provolone, parmesan)
Veggies (mushrooms, green peppers, onions, tomatoes, olives)
Meat
We can say every pizza must have a crust, must have one or more sauces, etc.
Can add another layer and say there are 'veggie pizzas' and 'meat pizzas' and what is within those categories…